I'm upsizing from my Epson R800. As far as I can see the direct upgrade is to the R1800. But although I think the colour output from the R800 is stunning, I haven't been able to get B&amp;W prints that I'm happy with. They always seem to have a colour-cast and I've tried all kinds of tricks from websites etc. Duotone and Quadtone printing help, but even so I think B&amp;W could be better.

From what I've read any of these are fine for colour with very similar (and excellent) image quality, but the two front-runners for B&amp;W are #3 &amp; #4.

Does anyone have any direct experience of how good the R2400 is on B&amp;W compared to the 8750?

I am not printing very high volumes, so costs of consumables are not a particular problem, and I really don't care about print speed.

I have to say I've not had any real problems with nozzle clogging or anything like that on the R800, so I have no particular worry about that. But I really don't want to be swapping cartridges when I want to print B&amp;W - so I really want a printer than can do both colour and B&amp;W without switching anything around.

Also I have a general prejudice against HP printers as I have so many problems with their drivers in my work. I find their software and drivers in general to be overly "cutesy" for consumer products and buggy for both consumer and office products in general.

I have made vows in the past never to buy HP again, but if the 8750 really is the best B&amp;W printer of the group then I shall have to reconsider.

A few months ago I went through the same process that you are. I was thinking of the same 4 printers that you have listed. I am also a pervious owner of the Canon I9100, the predocessor to the I9900 (I9950). The main reason I was looking to upgrade was because of print fade, even on Canon papers after a few months.

Do to the print fade of the Canon, I took that out really fast. I have even tried to spray my prints, but I did not like the way they looked. When I called the photo store to order my printer, they told me that they would not sell the R1800 because of color problems, and they were not happy at all with its output. The HP went to the way side do to the limited papers, HP paper is expensive and others do not work as well with it. Also, the tri cartridges and paper feed style/problems.

I went with the Epson R2400 do to the printer output, as the colors are just amazing on matte and glossy prints. I am not worried about the speed, as it is slower than the Canon I9100, but the output just blows it away. With this printer, you can use many different types of paper, from regular to fine art, to 1.3mm poster board. B&amp;W outout is just amazing too. It is great, you see no color cast at all. I have even printed a B&amp;w image with the color settings, and no color cast at all, that amazed me. The printer appears to be very efficent on ink too. As I have printed about 60 8x10 and 1 13x19 before I had to change my light magenta. The one draw back to this printer is that you have to exchange out the matte black and photo black cartridge do the to paper that you are using. For this, I just do my prints in batches by the paper in use. But, this is good too, as your blacks are tailored to the paper.

Also, I have done prints from the I9100 and the Epson R2400, with no changes to the image, from the same computer, and from QImage. The R2400 prints just blow the Canon away on correct colors, saturations, accuracy, and overall image quality. These were on the same paper, Pictorico Photo Gallery Glossy. I have not compared the 2400 to the 8750 for b&amp;w output.

I recomend the Epson 2400, as it is a great printer.

Hope this helps you out. If you have any questions, please let me know.

The 2400 makes great prints on matte and glossy in either color or b&amp;w. I mainly use matte paper for prints of older images that I am asked to touch up, prints that I want to frame, and prints that I want to give a different feel too. Why I like to frame matte paper is so that I do not have the double reflection. I have noticed with glossy prints (mainly from the Canon I9100) that I would have two reflections, one from the print and the other from the glass. The 2400 glossy prints give more of a pearl finish when done, so it does take away some of the reflection on the print. The glossy prints from the Canon I9100 were still very glossy. I do frame glossy prints too, just depends on the image and the feeling that I want to give. With the pearl like finish from the 2400 finishedprints, thepaper glareisn't as noticeablelike from the Canon. I do print glossy for people that do not like the matte look of the images.

For color prints, having the extra blacks helps with the shadows, as they transition in better. Also, you will not get the color shifts as bad in the darker regions as with other printers. They have to use the colors to make the shaded areas, as the 2400 has the different blacks to help in these areas.

The cartridge change isn't that bad, just more of an annoyance. When you do this, it appears to use very little of the other inks during the purge cycle. It clears all of the ink from the matte or photo black that you just changed. It would be nice to have both of them in the print head next to each other. But, as I did mention before, you have your black inks tailored to glossy paper or matte paper.

If at all possible, test drive the two printers at a local store to see if you like the output. That is another way I finally went with the Epson. I took my own image, paper and went to the store. They were willing to help me make the print.

Also, the Epson print driver and software is fairly easy to use, at least for me. I am running Windows XP, and have see it ran on a MAC too.

As I say I'm very wary of HP printers of all varieties, I find the drivers and bundled software is often very buggy on everything from high-throughput printers running off of Windows2003 print servers and crummy all-in-one software for consumer level multifunction devices. I've had bad experiences with 2 of my own HP inkjet printers in the past and I have sworn off them whenever I can find a good alternative.

It seems that the R2400 is a very good alternative then, and my experience with the R800 has been good. So I am now 99% sure I'll be getting the 2400.

I really don't like the way you reject the Canon i9900 and thez way you say one prints good colors and the other doesn't.

One should caliber anything he gets as it suits him, not just out of the box.

I am giving you an example on why you shoudn't trust anything out of the box :
The companies, Canon, Epson, HP and others are making stocks of their ink (for years) and make drivers depending on the results after. When they change their stocks they have to make new drivers because they are unable to reproduce exactly the same color inks.
So all that stuff, ICM, ICM2 et all are not near to what happens in all the process, the lighting you will use, the paper, the inks that may be altered based on many factors.
If you want good prints, you do have to caliber that manually.

Now about the spectrum, Canon, the ones with 8 inks has the best spectrum. Then depnding on what paper you use, fading or anything that alters your prints depends mostly on the paper. In fact depending on the paper the inks may combine with it or simply get stuck on or in it. There are many factors that will make them change with time. there have been some tests made and if printed on good quality abnd especially the best recommended by the printer company, you may not see much difference after a year if the print is put out of direct strong light and kept under normal mild light. This is true about any ink and this is the normal use one may expect. If you want better, you should choose the best and take into account this shouldn't be considered as you everyday printer, so whatever the costs are. There are laser and thermal solutions way more suited then, and maybe you do not have to own those all by yourself.

The 2400 is the best choice for you, for sure, the Canon 9900 does not make great B/W prints...you can get so-so prints but they are always 'colorcast'.

The 2400 will make BW prints as good as it gets, (the only exception to this is a HP Designjet at this price point..they do have better blacks, but have other issues).

I have a R1800 and a Epson Pro Stylus and several Canons in the house and if its a BW it gets done on the Epson K3 ink printer..period with Advanced BW mode or a CH mixer BW and a profile.

I also have use of an HP8750 and it makes nice BW's for sure. But its limited in other areas.

The 2400 has a wonderful color, wonderful BW's, water resitant prints, a print driver that will allow 13 x 44" panoramics (and longer) that the Canon and HP 8750 can not do, a wonderful archival paper selection, thick media handling etc...and on and on.

Its a no brainer the 2400 is the best all around printer in this price class , my opinion.

I have a R1800 (early acceptor) and sometimes I wished I waited longer, but my 4800 makes up for that, and I have the R1800 and the GLOP if needed.

I purchased the i9900 early this year just after it came out, after reading countess reviews.

It prints magnificent color.

But I have been fiddling around for 6 months trying to get decent black and white on many papers. One of the problems is that the printer is using just one cartridge to get black and white if you print greyscale, or all the carts if you print non-grayscale, and the images are either tinted or don't have the depth that they should. The metamerism is just unacceptable.

In addition, most professionals and dedicated amateurs are using epson printers, so the majority of information on the web, including profiles and paper and ink discussions revolved around the epsons. If you want to print BW on the Canon, you have to use trial and error, which is time consuming and expensive.

My good friend has the 2400, and has allowed me to print some of my images. It is fairly easy to do out of the box!

If you are serious about BW, it is a no brainer. Go for the 2400. It is, however, nearly 2x the price of the 9900.